CVE-2026-3053
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA vulnerability was determined in DataLinkDC dinky up to 1.2.5. This affects the function addInterceptors of the file dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/configure/AppConfig.java of the component OpenAPI Endpoint. Executing a manipulation can lead to missing authentication. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceDataLinkDC Dinky up to version 1.2.5 contains a missing authentication vulnerability in the OpenAPI endpoint's addInterceptors function within AppConfig.java. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to access and manipulate interceptors without any authentication credentials, potentially gaining unauthorized control over the application's request handling pipeline.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.2.5CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Dinky versionCheck the installed Dinky version by inspecting the version file, pom.xml, or application properties configuration (typically in version.properties, pom.xml, or application.yml). Compare the found version to the affected range: <= 1.2.5Affected if The installed version is 1.2.5 or any earlier version
-
Locate the OpenAPI endpoint configurationFind the AppConfig.java file in the Dinky installation and examine the OpenAPI endpoint definitions, specifically the addInterceptors function. Look for the presence of the /openapi/addInterceptors endpoint path in the source code or compiled classesAffected if The addInterceptors endpoint exists in the codebase without authentication annotations or security constraints
-
Test OpenAPI endpoint accessibilitySend an unauthenticated HTTP request to the addInterceptors endpoint (typically at /openapi/addInterceptors) using curl or a similar tool. Observe if the request is accepted or rejected based on HTTP response codeAffected if The endpoint returns a successful response (2xx) without requiring any authentication tokens, headers, or credentials
-
Check authentication configurationExamine the application's security configuration files (application.yml, application.properties, or security-related Java classes) for authentication settings on OpenAPI endpoints. Look for settings like openapi.auth.enabled, security.config, or similar authentication flagsAffected if Authentication is disabled or not configured for the OpenAPI endpoints, or no role-based access control is enforced on addInterceptors
-
Verify network exposureDetermine if the Dinky server is bound to a public IP address or exposed externally. Check the server configuration (server.address or similar) and firewall rules to see if the OpenAPI port is accessible from untrusted networksAffected if The Dinky server listens on a public IP or is accessible from untrusted networks without network-level access controls
A user is affected if they are running Dinky version 1.2.5 or earlier AND the OpenAPI addInterceptors endpoint is accessible without authentication credentials.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scopedImplement proper authentication and authorization checks on the OpenAPI endpoint, specifically for the addInterceptors function. Apply role-based access controls and validate user sessions before allowing interceptor modifications.
Dinky 1.2.6 or later
- Check the official DataLinkDC Dinky GitHub releases page for versions newer than 1.2.5 that address this authentication vulnerability
- Upgrade to Dinky version 1.2.6 or later (the first version containing the fix)
- After upgrade, verify that authentication is now required for OpenAPI endpoints by attempting unauthenticated requests
- Confirm the addInterceptors function in AppConfig.java now properly enforces authentication
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-3053 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-3053 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data